Comments on: India’s Art, Booming and Shaking

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:55:46 +0000

“Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder”

When I viewed the amateur art gallery link that Andria provided, I saw widely varying levels of skill and refinement. Some I was drawn to, others didn’t elicit any emotional content. I’m sure that each and every painting drew out an emotion attachment from someone, that’s the nature of art. That subjectiveness is the basis for my comment above.

Art is not just paintings or sculptures. It is architecture, it’s clothes, its place-mats, bronze castings….. in short it’s what you make it. I don’t think that you have to be trained to be an artist, it just helps to understand different techniques.

My view is that as India becomes more and more globalized, people in other parts of the world will determine the value of art pieces, and the private sector will build galleries to sell them.

The Indian government already demonstrated that it has an appreciation of the value of its art and history. The National Museum in New Delhi has over 2,000,000 items on exhibit that spans over 5000 years. That’s a wide range.

By: Chris Phippen

Chris Phippen — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:08:29 +0000

As for the question of how Indian art will evolve into its own style and genre, my first thought mirrors Jordan’s. I am by no means a student of art, though I appreciate the art I’ve been exposed to. That said, I would imagine that an art school wouldn’t focus on a particular style but focus more on teaching the student to tap into their own experiences, perceptions, emotions, and perspectives to help them shape their own individual style. If that’s a correct assumption, Indian art will certainly evolve into and probably already has its own style because the factors that shape the style of the artists are likely unique to India.
I would also echo some of the points that Tim and Chase made above. On one hand, the Indian government should step in and invest in some art infrastructure to help preserve this cultural asset. But on the other hand, India knows poverty to an extent and severity that I don’t pretend to grasp, and shouldn’t that be a priority? How does one weigh such things, and who does the weighing?

By: Jordan Wente

Jordan Wente — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:00:48 +0000

It makes sense that Indian art is exploding. The culture and diversity in India provide inspiration that will most likely translate into fascinating artwork. Even if Indians have to go abroad to study the craft, their culture and experience remain with them allowing Indian art to still evolve into its own style. I think that even if education is provided within the country the style will most likely be similar to the art produced from artist who went abroad to study. Outside influences will still impact the creative spirit of the artists as India continues to integrate with the rest of the world.
Most schools in India are base around the hard sciences because this is where they see the most future potential. I think if demand for Indian art continues to increase education in this field will evolve as a result. If the industry continues to grow so will the available options for education. The US has the opportunity to offer such education in this field because of economic prosperity and the same is likely to be true in India.

By: Michael Minasian

Michael Minasian — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:25:03 +0000

Indian art is by no means a new or strictly modern innovation. However I think the point of the article is that it is more recent that the modern art that is being produced is being recognized and is turning into boatloads of cash. This is not to say that ancient art isn’t ALSO highly prized, but more recently art was the not the first thing people thought of from modern India. This seems to be changing. It seems some investment in art infrastructure as Chase suggests would be a good idea to continue to grow the art market.

By: Chase Janvrin

Chase Janvrin — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:43:38 +0000

This is a fascinating topic! Can you imagine how the history books will look upon India if the defining characteristic of their entry into the 21st century is that they traded the artistic history of the oldest continuous culture in the world for capitalist success?! Similar to an earlier post touching on the significance of Bollywood, I think it would be a tragedy if India let its focus on this aspect of Americana get in the way of staying true to themselves. The notion that a country, any country, didn’t have museums or some type of “art infrastructure” had never crossed my mind until now. I love art museums and go to one every chance I get. I hope everyone has a life so priveledged that they have that opportunity. And you’re right, the Indian government MUST step up and do what’s needed to preserve the Indian influence and perspective to the art world.

By: Tim Lynds

Tim Lynds — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:38:48 +0000

Just as Will mentioned, people want and need the basics (food, water, etc) first before they can start focusing on luxuries such as fine art. Sure, no matter if you are rich or poor, you can appreciate and love art, but that is not to say you want to study it or can make enough money to live by creating it. Creating and viewing art can be a great source of personal pleasure and spirituality, but it often does not pay the bills.

Many Indians are stuck in a poverty level that we as relatively wealthy Americans cannot fully grasp. While I agree that India should have more museums and art schools, it should address the needs of the super poor first before investing in these assets. I personally do not think a museum or art school will benefit a kid in the slum because these kids are already making their own art.

By: William Ary

William Ary — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 04:32:42 +0000

Artwork’s value is subjective. I am glad to hear that Indian artists are making money, but I bet most of them (just like in the USA) cannot make ends meet selling art alone. That does not mean people do not value art, they just value food shelter and money to pay bill more. As Indians gain more dispensable income, they will be able to spend money on art.

As a side note, I’d like to say great art is not always expensive and does not have to be bought. People who have the luxury to step outside working to survive will pay, but the poor will always have their own art. Often, I find that it is the art that the poorest people create for themselves is the most beautiful and communicates the most about the human experience.

By: Danielle Steussy

Danielle Steussy — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:55:13 +0000

With such an emphasis on science and technological development in India, I’m actually surprised that so much money is pouring into artwork. That’s wonderful to hear and I hope that art, design and creativity can someday balance out the pressures of students to become doctors and engineers.

I agree with Phil though about India not needing to develop its own genre of art. India has such a rich, wonderful, and highly distinct history, that its artistic genre is a not a development but rather an establishment. What I’m really interested in finding out more about is how the art is evolving into contemporary design, particularly in advertising and other graphics.

By: Jason Silver

Jason Silver — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:04:58 +0000

Indian art has been heavily influenced by its deep cultural beliefs and practices. The three main periods for India art are the Ancient Period (3500BCE-1200CE), the Islamic Ascendancy (712-1757), and the Colonization Period (1757-1947). These periods greatly changed the style and form of Indian Art over the centuries. The affinity with Indian art is certainly growing. The history, tradition, and culture that is infused with the bright colors and fabrics of contemporary India all combine to form a unique artistic style. I am excited to view and hopefully learn more about Indian Art along our journey.

By: Phil Hamer

Phil Hamer — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:18:51 +0000

There is one line in this post that really bother me, “How will Indian art evolve into its own style and genre?” Hello?! Why do you think every photographer, interior decorator, painter, clothing designer, culinary artist, etc. looks to India for inspiration. I can tell you it is not because India is lacking it’s own artistic style and genre. It is because art is everywhere in India and, amazingly enough, they do not need to go into a museum to find India’s artistic style for inspiration.

Sure, India may not have the museums that San Fransisco and New York have, but maybe India doesn’t need western ideas of an “artistic society” with large overpriced galleries and misunderstood poets deciding what is or is not credible art.

Museums do a good job of preserving art and showcasing culture, but India is one Asian country that has done a good job preserving and showcasing their culture without the need to box everything up in glass display cases. Furthermore, I do not think that visiting modern art galleries is where India’s poor fall on their Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

In my opinion, India wears art on her sleeve. Art is not hidden in the marble walls of a museum. It is on the edifice of Hindu temples, on the patterns of the sari, in the mixture of the spices of a good masala, in the street markets, at an Indian wedding… these are the real “Indian masterpieces” and the Indian population already has access to them.